ESPON 2013 Programme Internal Seminar Evidence-based Cohesion Policy: Territorial Dimensions Kraków, Poland 30.11.2011

1. ESPON 2013 Programme Internal Seminar Evidence-based Cohesion Policy: Territorial Dimensions Kraków, Poland 30.11.2011 Teresa Sprague & Kathrin Prenger-Berninghoff TU Dortmund ESPON Climate Climate Change and Territorial Effects on Regions and Local Economies

2. Objectives: Provide pan-European vulnerability assessment, identifying regional typologies of climate change exposure, sensitivity, impact and vulnerability. Provide guidance for territorial development through identifying vulnerabilities and capacities for mitigation and adaptation Development of an indicatorsystemtodetermineregional vulnerabilitytoclimatechangeimpactswithsectoralfocus From results can derive tailor-made adaptation options applicable to regional context Policyimplicationsof regional climatechangevulnerability Objectives

3. Main policy Question: How and to which degree will climate change impact on the competitiveness and cohesion of European regions and Europe as a whole? In which way can policy contribute to mitigate climate change, and to adapt to and manage those results of climate change that cannot be avoided, while making sure that synergies of mitigation and adaptation policies are being exploited? • How to address EU Territorial Agenda Priority 5, “Further work is required to develop and intensify territorial cohesion policy, particularly with respect to the consequences of territorially differentiated adaptation strategies.” Policy Questions

4. Project Partners Project Coordination: Institute of Spatial Planning, TU Dortmund University (IRPUD) Primary Research Partners: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) Aalto University School of Science and Technology Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research Newcastle University Case Study Research Partners: Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Environmental Economics VÁTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Company for Regional Development and Town Planning National Institute for Territorial and Urban Research Urbanproject Agency for the Support of Regional Development Koišce, n.o. Autonomous University of Barcelona The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL

5. Climate Change Exposure Climate change exposure: refers to the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to climatic variations Projects made use of the IPCC CCLM model (e.g. 2071-2100) and the A1B scenario Eightdirect stimuli and two indirect climate change effects (sea level rise and river flooding) were considered ESPON Climate project is not a clear-cut forecast due to uncertainty generated from the model used, the emissions scenario, and the difficult to estimate socioeconomic trends

6. Climate Change Regions and Case Studies

7. Sensitivity: “the degree to which a system isaffected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli” (IPCC 2007) E.g. economic sensitivities include: agriculture, forestry, tourism, energy sector (see map) Local economies which depend on tourism are highly sensitive: Mediterranean, the Alps, large parts of Eastern Europe ESPON Climate provides a disaster risk assessment with the combination of both absolute and relative sensitivities Europe’s Regions and Their Different Sensitivities to Climatic Changes

8. Adaptive capacity: “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and changes” (IPCC 2007c) Awareness: identification of vulnerabilities and adaptation measures Ability: technology and infrastructure to permit movement from awareness toward action Action: economic resources and institutions enable implementation of defined adaptation measures Results: Nordic have higher capacity than Southern, Eastern European in general lower capacity than North or West, Mediterranean lower capacity than Baltic Sea region Adaptive Capacity: Dimensions, Indicators and Results

9. Mitigative capacity: “a country’s ability to reduceanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks”(Winkler et al 2007). Same dimensions as for adaptive capacity (awareness, ability, action) Four types of regions: • Regions withhigh mitigative capacity and low greenhouse gas emissions • regions with both high mitigative capacity and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions • regions with low mitigative capacity and low greenhouse gas emissions • regions withhigh emissions and low mitigativecapacity Results: Regions with high emissions and high mitigative capacity can be found in Western Europe as well as in parts of Scandinavia. Regions with high emissions and low mitigative capacity can be found in Eastern Europe in the UK and Ireland. Climate Change Mitigation

10. Impact: “[c]onsequences of climate change on natural and human systems” (IPCC 2007) Hot spots: coastal areas, mountain areas, and particularly areas in which tourism is a significant economic contributor Impact and Vulnerability of European Regions to Climate Change Vulnerability: “a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (IPCC 2007) Countries most highly effected have lower adaptive capacity *This is contradictory to current and future aims of territorial cohesion*

11. Importance of tailor-made adaptation strategies (e.g. for Southern Europe and for areas where tourism will be effected such as the Alps and the Mediterranean) Eastern Europe is also particularly affected by demographic changes Measures enacted can target different objectives: adaptation capacity, capitalisation, coping capacity toextreme events, reduction or risk and sensitivity Main focus of dialogue thus far: identifying impacts and management of extreme events Challenge to spatial planning: existing structures Legitimacy of actions taken: must include involvement of all societal groups (esp. with regard to working with inevitable uncertainties) Importance of establishing a broad mandate from all social groups (e.g. justification of quantitative goals which are normative in character) Policy Implications

12. Thank you for your attention!